To compare the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel in induction of labour at term

Authors

  • Sunitha Chatla Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  • Sowmya Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  • Jeruha Kadium Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Maternity Hospital/ Osmania Medical College, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Keywords:

Dinoprostone, Misoprostol, Meconium stained liquor.

Abstract

Introduction: There are various mechanical and pharmacological methods currently in use for induction of labour, however no single method or agent has been found suitable for all clinical conditions. Aims: To compare efficacy of induction of labour with Dinoprostone gel and Misoprostol with respect to induction delivery interval, type of delivery.To study the maternal and fetal outcome of both groups. Materials and methods: This randomized prospective study was conducted in 100 low risk singleton pregnant women who consented for the study and in whom cervical ripening and labour induction was indicated were studied. 50 women received Misoprostol-25μg in the posterior vaginal fornix and other 50 patients received intracervical Dinoprostone-0.5mg gel. Results: In the Dinoprostone group the mean induction delivery interval was 17.0±3.10hrs. In the Misoprostol group the mean induction delivery interval was 12.0±2.23 hrs.80% cases had a vaginal delivery and 20% had caesarean section in Dinoprostone group. In the Misoprostol group 10% cases were failed inductions, the major cause being fetal distress. There was 38% incidence of side effects of Dinoprostone of which vomiting 4% and PPH 22% were seen commonly. In Misoprostol group tachysystole 4% and hyperstimulation 6% formed the major side effects out of an incidence of 30%.There was a 6% incidence of thick meconium stained liquor in Misoprostol group, compared 2% incidence in Dinoprostone group. There was 10% incidence of NICU admission in both groups. Meconium aspiration syndrome and birth asphyxia were the major indications with an incidence of 6% and 4% Misoprostol group. Hyperbiluribinemia was the major cause of NICU admission in Dinoprostone group with an incidence of 6%. Conclusion: Misoprostol is apparently safe, efficient and a cost-effective drug for induction of labour.

Downloads

Published

2022-01-18

How to Cite

Sunitha Chatla, Sowmya, & Jeruha Kadium. (2022). To compare the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel in induction of labour at term. International Journal of Health and Clinical Research, 5(1), 233–239. Retrieved from https://www.ijhcr.com/index.php/ijhcr/article/view/3986